madro

Strong element in the foregorund and very good color contrast. Yellow works well if the background is blue, the water though seems to be green has a lot blue in it. Why didnt you open the photo on the left hand side? You would get some extra depth.

The photo works because you have a strong element in the foreground, i.e. the two girls. That also means you could not get rid of the stairs. The photo is good as it is, I would include more of the sky and a bit space to the right. The image being cropped as it is, is a bit sqweezed. Try to design your photos so that you have people facing you, by having the two girls photographed from behind you lost social content.

The photo is having a noticeable red cast.

The photo is black and white and RED. You can see that if you load it in Photoshop and use the eyedropper tool.

Otherwise the photo is perfect; I wish only, it would have been taken with a bigger format camera.

"but I think the color saturation, as in many of Patrick's shots, is a bit overdone."

Disagree. Patrick is one of the few people can use the full range of color in one shot.

If you use an output device profile on some of his photos, you find out that many of them are NOT printable. I tried a Lightjet printer profile and found out that one of his photos is about 33% unprintable. That means that the colors are outside Lightjet's gamut. That points points out either lack of digital workflow or over-saturation. Or he uses a printer that doesnt have a problem to print bright and shiny (and flouroscent) colors. Whether the photo looks muddy or has a color cast is irrelevant because most people do not calibrate their monitors.

A photo essay is not an easy thing (time consuming). If you take a look at some (better known) photo essays, you probably notice that there are always some posed photos. These posed photos were necessary to improve on the story presented to the reader. A good approach is to take an unposed photo and then to ask the people for a posed group photo or for portraits. Just imagine that you would have protraits of the six kids on the bench. I think that TOGETHER with the unposed photo, it would be a nice collection. I am just trying to say that it is often not enough to use what is offered to you but to create the opportunity by yourself. I know that you strongly advocated against posed photographs, but in some cases posed photos look very appropriate to me. It is all about being efficient. I can imagine myself walking with the XPan around my neck and waiting for a good photo. I can imagine that it will take me 20 years to come up with a good collection of photographs, especially, because some of them would be so apart in time...

I met Mauskopf when he came for an assignment to my previous employer. I went for a lunch with him. He was explaining me his way of photography and all that. He showed me his books. When you buy any of them ("A Time Not Here" is probably his best), you will see that many of his photos are very grainy, not especially sharp. I believe he crops his photos quite a bit. There are a few panoramic photos that have been obviously cropped from a 35mm frame. In some cases he used the middle of the book to connect two photos into a diptich. His philosophy, as I understood it, is based on "expert" photographic design rather than anything else. He didnt seem very impressed by sharpness in photos; he noted that HCB was using lenses with outdated design (by today's standards), nevertheless, his photos have become a benchmark for documentary photography. He is teaching "Photograhic Design" at Santa Fe Workshops so, if interested, you can take his class.

Some of his photos are posed. I admire both his ability to take "unposed" as well as "posed" photographs. The posed photographs are a part of his visual storytelling; he always emphasized to me that good photos are not everything, and that one shoudl never forget that these photos are going to be a part of a photo essay and therefore one should photograph accordingly. Notice also that his books are about groups of people that are usually hard to approach. I think he spent a lot of time figuring out how to become an insider.

I can only add that his publisher -- Twin Palms -- is a very reputable one. They use high quality paper and I believe that actual fine prints are not much better than what can be seen in the books.

This photo of yours probably fulfills the well known that "one picture is often more than a thousand words". There are not too many photos that would convey such a good characterization of a certain aspect of teenage life. I would actually have to go through the books to find a photo that would compare well to this one. It has some small technical deficiency -- given that the light was very flat you could have taken the photo with less overexposure, thus preventing the blur. But after all, as I previosly said, that is not a big issue. More of a concern is that it is not a part of a larger collection of photographs with the same theme. You would probably need to devote a lot of time to come up with a complete photo essay. Take a look at photographs by Lauren Greenfield. She managed to put together a few interesting photo essays (she has my respect for that); she figured out how to approach people but the quality of hew photography is not that good as Mauskopf's. Her photos lack, in my opinion, that expert skill to "design" photos. I find her photos also a bit commercial -- she includes in her books photos of some very well known people without considering whether the photos fit in... In some of her photos I can see very good use of colors but definately for her the story is more important than the artistic side. I would prefere to own a book with photos like "Waiting for ..." than a book with her photographs (I have bought "Girl Culture" but was slightly dissapointed).

One more example would be Mary Ellen Mark. I have seen her photos in Prague at the Leica Gallery. Many of her photos were printed the way she took them; without cropping. I only want to comment on her choice of subjects. She did a lot of "social" photography, sometimes visiting strange places like psychiatric hospitals. I am finding photos of everyday life more interesting than any other photos. Some people say that they could not take a good photo because they have never been to India or the Grand Canyon. I think to acquire a skill to see what is worth to be photographed is not easy. Many people, as you pointed out, are able to take technically good photographs, well composed but they really lack in choice of their subjects. I actually believe that for them it is not a choice...

A photographer that really opened my eyes with respect to everyday subjects is Stephen Shore. I am still learning from his photography. The photos in the book are excellent, there are some of his photos on the web but they are too small to be appreciated. Most of his photos were taken with a 8x10" camera.

To conclude, the strength of a series of photographs ordered into a photo essay is largely underestimated. The best example of that is this web site. Nowhere get random photos so much attention as here :-((.

".. in general your pictures are more along spacious lines .." - an interesting statement. As I said the XPan viewfinder isnt the best one in the world. I was always afraid of loosing a photo because I frame too tight without having that in mind. I always felt guilty of not making those extra two steps towards the object...

Shortly after I bought the camera I went to visit a friend of mine to Italy. We visited a bunch of Italian towns -- but not Rome. I tried a few rolls of T400CN. I didnt like the low contrast, the look of it. I didnt like the idea that I have to overexpose one-stop to get "normal" density. I switched to Tri-X and I am happy with the film. Grain is no problem. It is always possible to go closer to the object and get more detail that way.

I barely use the "normal" mode. By default I use the camera in panoramic mode. I got used to the wider frame. Also, it takes a while to switch the modes so it is not an option when the scene is evolving very fast.

I think that your photos have sort of motivated me to try to take documentary photos. Now, I find it more challenging than photographing landscapes ;). In Santa Fe, NM I met Norman Mauskopf. Take a look at his photos. By now, I have bought all the books that he ever published. Very good BW documentary photography.

This is maybe this web site's best photo. Excellent! I like it since I saw it for the first time two years ago. You only had a second or so for the photograph. Not many people realize how little time is that, barely to switch the camera on, pre-focus, approach the object; all that without being noticed.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that the light was not that great; it looks like taken later in the afternoon. I think you would do better if you didnt over expose the film by two stops; one-stop over exposure would give you the same effect and you would get rid of that blur (maybe).The strength of the photo is not in technical details. It does not matter whether it is blurred or not. All technical aspects are more than satisfactory. It is hard to say whether the photo is light or not, whether it needs some more contrast or not; even for people that actually do calibrate their monitors (I do). Myself, after some experimenting with film suitable for my XPan I have decided that I really need those two extra stops and started using Tri-X. Tri-X scans very well in my opinion.

This single photo is better than all your stitched panos together. I think for BW documentary photos you have already figured out why you take them and what you want to capture on the film.

This is a very well composed photo. I do not quite understand other people's comments about the bench. It was taken with a range finder camera; I really admire how you managed to aligne the boy's nose with the girl's hand. One small step to the left or right and it would not be the same photo anymore. The angle is very good; the boy's head is very well visible on the white background (T-shirt). The girl's eyes are aligned with the road; excellent for the amount of time that was given to you to take the photo.

I always had a feeling that the best photos are to be taken in front of our houses. This is an excellent example of that. Whoever with a camera could take such a photo; not too many try out. All those photos from India with good colors and all that: I think they only seem good because we do not understand what they show (I dont). This is a photo that I understand very well; it is from the same world in which I live. All I need to do is go outside and take such photos. Seems easy but is not; I would need a bit luck but that reward is only for those that really try hard.

The closest photo of mine in comparison to your photo is probably this one. I was lucky. The scene in front of me was excellent. I took the photo in panoramic mode so I could sqweeze more action onto the film. I like the photo very much. I had time for a few frames - I like the photo very much except for one detail that I have decided is not important in my opinion. "Perfect" photos are seldom. I was so close to the kids that framing the scene was challenging. The XPan viewfinder is not the best in the world - my Fuji GW690 had better.

All those critiques above are at least unfair. It was not possible to frame the scene much better. I am almost sure that alll those people that say there is something not perfect would be: 1) still trying to figure out how to switch on their digi camera, or 2) they would take the photo in 640x400 jpeg mode or 3) they would never realize that this is a scene to be photographed (most likely), or 4) they would lack the intuition and miss the one second that was available, or I do not know what else. I think that in a few years robots will write better critiques. Missing bench - BAD. It is like as if photography was a rule based system. If those people tried to buy a photo with comparable qualities they would probably find out that it is hard to find one, and that they cannot actually afford one. Photos by Robert Frank etc. are not cheap.

One question: would you still decide to use the Kodak film over exposed +2f or would you use a different film?

The "old" version is better. It has better contrast. This one is just too grey. The girl's face is too light.

The left lamp gives the picture balance. I cant imagine it without the lamp; I think the framing thru the top of the lamp is the best given the situation and quality of the sky. I have a feeling that the sky is a bit oversaturated blue but that can be my hand-calibrated monitor.

This folder reminds me of some photographs by Mark Oatney. Take a look and compare. I think his photos are technically/aesthetically very good.

Excellent documentary color photo. A few others in your folders are very good too. Take a look at the book 'A Way into India' by Raghubir Singh.

Good colors but is that important? The main weakness of the photo is that it lacks a more intensive story. Compare to this photo by Wim Wenders. If you get a chance to see a bigger version of the Wender's photo (buy the book) you will see that it is all very unsharp/blured (moved during exposure). How big is that a problem? The "low-placed" legs in this photo are just a minor problem. I cannot really see what the boys are doing; cant see the expression in their faces. Overall, the most interesting part of the photo is that the wall is yellow/blue and one of the boys is dressed yellow/blue.... Good colors isnt enough - with "painterly feel" or without.

The photo says nothing about Bangkok. There is nothing interesting in the photo; no unusual action or thing. The facial expressions are not very elevated. Without the title one doesnt know what they are actually doing and why they are there. I dont see any fragment of originality. The photo is too dark; it needs some help in photoshop.

My story for the image: Two thai women in a utility room of their San Francisco appartment or anywhere else. This is roughly what I could extract from the image. This implies for me that the image is no good.

It needs perspective adjustment.

Make a big print, hang it on a wall, keep looking at it for a month and then tell us how you liked looking at a broken CD for a month. If you liked it then the photo is good.

The photo presented as it is with all the people is just a snapshot. If you crop the bottom the place wont show up. So, I guess you needed to put the camera on a tripod and wait for a better moment with less people or the people being better configured around the place. But you probably couldnt use a tripod in a church... A bit of luck would do it.

In the photo presented as it is the lower street sign looks like photographer's thumb. That was my first impression. Then I figured out it is a street sign but I consider it a serious flaw. The left side of the photo is dark and lacks detail. It has a lot of grain. There is a telephone line going thru the frame. The upper street sign does not add much to the aesthetics of the photo either. I dont see anything special about the composition.

 

I dont see anything 'powerful' about the photo. The only thing I can see is that people consider photos showing some kind of catastrophy event 'powerful'. As I said before the complexity of contrast between the firefighters and the candles does nothing for me. I was attracted by it for a moment but then my brains refused it as a very cheap version of surprise. Where is something that would make me to want to see the photo again and again?

 

Looks more like a movie poster for a catastrophy movie. I am a bit negative about the photo but I would really finally like to see something 'common'. No catastrophy, no 40 milion people, no flash painting, no drunk guy, no face looking like the guy got hit by a hammer. Why do people think that an extraordinary event can do a photograph? It would be interesting to see photographs that show bored people or people going from work and you can see that the day really sucked. There are not too many of those. The reason is that those are hard to take since it requires an extreme sense for a given situation, good skills, it happens fast.

 

To sum it up. This photo is a great coincidence of two events but I think that photos with nothing extraordinary going on are more interesting anyway. Extraordinary defined as catastrophy, 40 milion people,...etc.

I am not finding the photo aesthetically very pleasing. Regarding originality: It is based on a contrast between fire and firefighters. Many photos are based on a contrast between two opposing events. I am just finding this one a bit boring. It falls into the category of contrasts between fire and water, big and small, dirty and clean etc. I would prefer some kind of more intriguing contrast if a photo is going to be based on it. The photo is certainly interesting (if it was not manufactured in PS). The coincidence of such two events is interesting. The photographer was prepared and used his opportunity. Overall, I would rate the photo Average/Fair+.

 

You dont need to freeze a scene. A zig-zag stich would do it I guess. I would like to know whether the stich is visible on a print.

Too dark. The guy in the background does not show anything but his back.

Not so good colors. Maybe it would look better BW. What I really miss is some facial expression.

Too much of the window. Take a look at Josef Sudek's windows photos.

A lot of sky but almost no detail in it. I think the photo fails technically. A filter would help.